Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task force/Archive 1

NB -- Ongoing discussions may be archived on a later page...
 * Archive of the WikiProject Thomas talk page: June 2006 – 09 Oct 2006
 * For earlier/later discussions, please use the navibox above.

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0
Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in offline releases of Wikipedia based on their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 1.0 (not yet open) and later versions. Hopefully it will also help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Arts WikiProject article table any articles of quality articles|high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've checked out most of the WikiLinks you've included, and earmarked articles as follows:


 * This is an initial assessment. As this WikiProject is about two fictional series, there would not likely be any "Top" need articles, and many articles apart from the above would fall into the "Low" need category. Let me know your thoughts in any case.
 * I may make contact with regards to worklists in the coming week.
 * Gonzerelli 06:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's very helpful. One of the groups is putting together a children's CD, I'm going to nominate the first article for that (if it's not already on there).  Hopefully we can add the Railway Series too once you've raised it to GA, it's something I grew up reading in the 60s!   Not a lot of time tonight, I'll update your table at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPArts later this week.  Please add any others you think are worth noting. Thanks a lot, Walkerma

Thomas Infobox
As has been discussed on SiF, the Thomas Infobox, found at Template:Thomas is not at an acceptable standard, being very selective about information presented. Until the Character Page Rationalisation mini-project (at least) has been completed, this infobox cannot be a comprehensive summary.

I have made notes on the Template's Talk page about this.

Gonzerelli 07:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Second infobox?

Hi. Just been fixing links to 'Daisy' character page (which is now a re-direct!) and bumped into a second 'Thomas' infobox: Template:ThomastheTankEngine

As this template is (a) superfluous, (b) full of old links, and (c) not used anywhere, may I suggest that it should be deleted rather than maintained?

EdJogg 08:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well spotted, and quite right. Template:Thomas is coming along nicely, and is much more comprehensive and "correct" than this version.
 * Addressing the user who created this template on their user page right now. Will most likely nominate for deletion.
 * Gonzerelli 03:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Character Page Rationalisation
One of the aims of Wiki:Project Thomas is that of streamlining the character pages so that there are no unnecessary pages of 5 lines or so – rather, having each character allocated to one of several primary articles with all relevant information about that character in that page. The only exceptions being the ‘main’ characters: Engines 1-10, Emily, Skarloey Engines 1-6, Annie & Clarabel, Bertie, Terence, Trevor, Harold, The Fat Controller.

Characters appearing in both The Railway Series and the TV Series will need to be described from the perspective of each. The 'main' character articles will cover both perspectives. All other characters appearing in both strands will need TWO entries - one in each of the appropriate Railway Series and TV Series sub-pages - since the character development is often very different.

List of Characters
Below is the list of characters and their allocations (in rough order of appearance):

MAGAZINE CHARACTERS – Place in "Thomas Magazines" page once located''
 * Algy
 * Victor
 * Sidney
 * Angus
 * Little Barford
 * No.13
 * Rickety''

'' * Engine will keep their own Wikipedia page. ** Engine *may* keep own page <nowiki?**** Engine may keep own page for TV Series, not kept for Railway Series''

All other characters will be placed in one of the above pages and their own Wikipedia page redirected to the relevant list.

Thanks to Thomasfan for the list of characters. Great work.

If anyone has any problems with the above classifications, discuss them here.

Best regards, Thehalford 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion - Character Page Rationalisation
As you can see above, there are an incredible number of characters attached to the combined series (TV Series + Railway Series). This is why the Character Page Rationalisation mini-project is vital to the quality of related articles' improvement.

As it stands, with engines 1-10 +Emily, four vehicles, two coaches, and one human with "individual" pages, in addition to the "larger scale" articles, we're looking at a formidable 30+ pages already. This is after rationalisation.

My thought is that the Skarloey engines could do without their own individual pages - their development in the TV Series has not been anywhere near as extensive as in the Railway Series. As such, they could quite easily be discussed in detail on Skarloey Railway (Railway Series perspective), and in the existing place on Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends) (TV Series perspective). This would also keep the total number of pages at a minimum.

Gonzerelli 03:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For now, i've linked from Major Characters (The Railway Series) to the main Skarloey individual pages, with brief descriptions of the locos. For articles that seem TV perspective heavy, i've just given brief descriptions with no links. For my opinion, I think that engines/locos should be kept seperate from the Railway articles, as they seem to long, and to have groups of engines all over the place will make linking and a larger 'character' article difficult.

Mdcollins1984 12:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Character Page Rationalisation project is a mammoth exercise, so may I suggest a few ideas that might help?
 * Progress Chart - Sounds grand, doesn't it? What I am thinking of is the above character list converted into a table with columns for TV Series and Railway Series Wikilinks.  Then editors can add links to the appropriate characters once they have been dealt with, or, even more helpful, indicate where a character entry is not required.  (Many characters only appear in the TV Series OR the books, but not both.)  This should help focus effort where it is required.  (NB - my Wiki-table creation abilities are inadequate for this task! Sorry!)
 * Page Size - some of the pages that group characters together are becoming very large and might benefit from sub-division into separate pages - for example the eight narrow gauge engines from Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends) could be logically separated into an article that would be quite large enough to not be a stub.
 * A number of characters, both featured and unfeatured, could logically be grouped together under The Other Railway, since they are all visitors from the mainland. I'm thinking about: Diesel, D199, 31120 (D31120), 'D10761', Pip & Emma, Jinty, Pug, etc. Indeed, many already have a minor entry there.


 * Thoughts?


 * (For my own part, I am concentrating on entries for characters from The Railway Series, as that is where my 'knowledge' and interests lie.)


 * EdJogg 11:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Progress chart I'd definitely embrace, good thinking there. :) Unfortunately, you're not alone in having inadequate Wiki abilities to create the table... :P
 * Page size - this is a tricky one to deal with. The 8 Narrow Gauge engines in your example are being examined from a TV perspective on the Railway Engines page, and from a RWS perspective on the Skarloey Railway page.
 * The Other Railway - always going to be an article on its own, but rather than bogging down that page with character descriptions, linking to the relevant page should be enough, I'd have thought.
 * Certainly food for thought in any case. Thanks for that. :)
 * Thehalford 04:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments about The Other Railway noted. I won't go moving the characters to that page (although it could do with some related tidying)!


 * As for the table - I'm creating a little one at the moment, for another purpose, so I might try later in the year...
 * EdJogg 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Updated character list above into a WikiTable. Only a fairly basic one, but it serves its purpose. I've taken the liberty of "crossing out" (ie. XXXXX) either TV Series aspect, or Railway Series aspect, where appropriate. Gonzerelli 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You'll see that I have tidied the table a little, and added some colour to make things clearer (hopefully!). I've updated status for a number of characters that I know are complete (see green boxes with 'link').  Use of 'link' to link to article entry is just an idea, but I thought it might be useful? EdJogg 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Page rationalisation - How to
Having finally created the Major Characters (The Railway Series) page out of sheer frustration, it is now possible to do a full tidy-up for a character. I have done this for Devious Diesel as an example.


 * First, I updated the Railway Series and TV Series grouped articles for the character, providing clear cross-linking between the two. (TV Series entry concentrates on characteristics, book entry includes prototype (real loco) information)


 * Second, I cross-linked the Railway Series character with the real locomotive. (In this case there are also links to the TV Series characters, but that would not normally be the case).


 * Thirdly, working on the individual character page itself, start removing the links: begin by redirecting the link from Template:Thomas, which will get rid of most links.


 * Fourthly, work on each remaining link to the character page (except user/talk pages) to replace link with direct link to either TV or book character.


 * Finally, re-instate the re-direct - usually to the book character entry.

The reason for working this way is that the TV Series character is based on the book character which is based on the real life engine. Hence the TV Series character need not refer to the real engine at all.

NB - In due course we could do with pictures of the book characters, the article illustrations would make more sense then!

And now I need a holiday - see you all in two weeks! EdJogg 13:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfeatured vs Minor Characters ?
What is the purpose of the Unfeatured Characters page?

At present this page has a mix of non-speaking minor characters that have appeared (such as 31120) and/or been named (such as Neil), and other characters which have never even appeared in the books (such as Elsie). Surely this page should be for just the latter (non-appearing) characters, with the appearing characters being moved to Minor Characters ?

EdJogg 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My reccomendation for this is to follow what is above, and then if the need arises to change the characters around (or even merge articles), it will be a much simpler proposition. Gonzerelli 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, makes sense. In the meantime I have re-written the introductory paragraphs of Unfeatured Characters to better reflect the scope of the characters covered, which should avoid the need to move them round later. EdJogg 10:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Per-Character Information?
Query following a recent edit to Unfeatured Characters (The Railway Series).

Should each character, on a page of multiple characters, be an 'article in itself'? For example, does each entry need to state that it is "...a fictional locomotive from The Railway Series by..."? Or is the reader expected to scroll to the top of the page to discover this generic information? (I'm thinking of the effect of Wikilinking to the character entry directly.)

EdJogg 13:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel this depends on the nature of the actual article. For Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends), most characters' sections are fairly self-sufficient, however on Skarloey Railway, this may not be necessary. Gonzerelli 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * does each entry need to state that it is "...a fictional locomotive from The Railway Series by..."?
 * Heh...that would be my fault. I pretty much found the relevant 'small' article and copy/pasted the info/formatting straight into the 'Big' pages. But to answer your question, I think it's pretty superfluous and obvious what the characters are, so that above statement can be cut. Thehalford 02:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oliver
EdJogg brought something to my attention on my Talk Page, and that was the use of Oliver in his own page. I've copied my (somewhat lengthy) response here. Hopefully it clarifies a few things. Gonz

Hi there Ed,

Something may have slipped past my eye, but when I first set up the Character Page Rationalisation mini-project (dating back to Feb-Mar), I set the guideline that only engines 1-10, Emily, Bertie, Harold, Terence, Trevor and Annie/Clarabel were to have their own individual pages. Since then, I have temporarily relaxed it a little to allow the Skarloey engines their own pages for now (although when pages are more structured I would like to phase these out too).

The basic reason for Oliver, in my view, not having his own page is that he was a "late" addition to both series, particularly the TV Series. This hasn't allowed him to develop to the extent of, say, Duck or Gordon. As Oliver the Great Western Engine currently stands, it holds a lot of superfluous content - detailed descriptions of specific episodes (also with a little much TV focus for my liking), as opposed to the limited story information on other pages, like James the Red Engine. Once we take the time to "weed out" the waffling, there wouldn't be all that much left, to prevent us from simply using it as part of a larger article. In particular, from a TV Series perspective, I would argue that Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends) contains more useful information than a "weeded" Oliver the Western Engine. As such, there would be no point redirecting to the individual article.

The reason I'm going to stand fairly strong on this is that if we start to make small allowances here and there, we'll just end up with the same mess of pages we used to have. It would go something like: ''Well, we've given Oliver his own page, how abot Bill and Ben? They're popular too... Oh but Daisy was much more prominent than Bill & Ben ever were, so she deserves her own page... BoCo didn't do much in the TV Series, but a lot of things revolved around him in the Railway Series, and hey the Bill and Ben story wouldn't be complete without him... And since we've got the first two Diesels, we should really have D3, or Bear, having his own page... And why not add Mavis too, she's much-loved, and it's another female character for us...'' And so it would continue, with an "excuse" or "allowance" being made for more and more characters...

I hope my reasons are clear, and will copy this onto the WP:THOMAS Talk page.

Kind regards, Gonzerelli 14:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * UPDATE - Since the above conversation, further vandal activity on the original Oliver the Great Western Engine page compelled me to sort the mess out. Oliver's details are now split across the two 'major character' pages, according to media coverage, and the original page is a re-direct. Nevertheless, Gonzerelli's comments still stand.
 * EdJogg 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-linking To Specific Railway Series Characters (How?)
I copy-edited The Railway Series page to remove a red link that referred to Devious Diesel, but the link opens at the top of the page rather than Diesel's own entry. The same occurs from the links from British Rail Class 08, on which Diesel is based.

As far as I can see (having consulted Wiki-Help), I have created the link in the correct way, yet it does not work as it needs to. Have I used the wrong syntax? (If it is not possible to link directly to a specific character then the policy of character rationalisation may be flawed.)

Incidentally, and intended in the least-antagonistic way, I write as someone who grew up with the stories from the original books, and to whom the TV series has always been rather a travesty (echoing Rev Awdry's views?!!) I broadly support the aims of this Project, but please remember that there are people who regard the character history and development in the original books to be the definitive version. (I think what I am trying to say is that book-related detail contained in individual character articles should not be sacrificed without good reason - eg Bear is an example of a good character article, while Oliver needs some serious work!)

EdJogg 16:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Ed. On my computer, the link to Diesel you've put in here opens directly at him - perhaps it's a computer/program thing. I'm using Firefox at the moment...in any event, the syntax is indeed correct.


 * As for your second point, you are well and truly not alone there. The broad aim of the Character rationalisation is to have the major pages (Thomas, Edward etc) look at the character from both TV and RWS perspective, while others such as Mavis and Daisy can be looked at TV Series wise on the Railway Engines page, and RWS on the North Western Railway page. Eventually, we hope to have the broad articles completed, thus removing the need for small articles for the 'lesser' characters such as Oliver. The Bear article is well set out, but small, which is another reason for the rationalisation - the information presented there would easily fit into a Minor Characters (The Railway Series) page, which does need to be created.


 * Thanks for your input. Thehalford 03:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. It's good to know I'm not alone.  I will try to assist the project in the future, although my time available for Wiki-editing is limited.


 * The link from The Railway Series is working fine for me too, today. (Bizarre. Maybe it was a cache thing?) However, the link from British Rail Class 08 is still not working.  This links to Devious Diesel, which is intended as a re-direct to Diesel.  The re-direct does not work - even entering 'Devious Diesel' in the search box - it just opens the Railway engines (TTE&F) page at the top.  However, opening the redirect page itself and clicking the link within does work.


 * The simple solution would be to change the Class 08 Wikilink to use the direct reference (as we've proved works elsewhere) leaving the existing text visible, but this does not fix the problem from the search box. Any thoughts?


 * Cheers EdJogg 09:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem here lies within people attempting to wiki-link through the "individual" pages, that is, typing the link as Devious Diesel rather than Railway engines (Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends).


 * As for using the search function... In this example, I have never heard of Diesel referred to as having an actual name of "Devious Diesel". So it would be more likely they would search for just "Diesel". But realistically, they would more likely go through either Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends or The Railway Series to find it.


 * Finally, you may notice that clear deliniation between TV Series and Railway Series aspects is a keystone part of WikiProject Thomas, and is indeed reflected in the Character Page Rationalisation mini-project.


 * Gonzerelli 17:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes to TrainsWikiProject for subprojects
I've proposed a change to TrainsWikiProject that would incorporate links to the various subprojects of WikiProject Trains. Your input on the template talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. Slambo (Speak) 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Shining Time Station
Since the popular PBS television series Shining Time Station contains many of the same characters and locations as the other Thomas series, shouldn't it be included in this wikiproject, even if it isn't the primary focus? --Tim4christ17 22:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * STS basically is TTTE catering to the US market, so yes, it definitely is a part of the project. The tags just haven't been added to that oage yet. ;) Thehalford 03:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically, STS was only created as a tool to deliver the episodes of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends. So the priority should be on TTTE&F, but Shining Time Station definitely falls into the scope of this WikiProject. Gonzerelli 14:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Official statement from WikiProject Thomas re. some vandalism
Recently, an unregistered user decided to vandalise the page Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, insulting the Sodor Island Forums (SIF) and its members, asserting that " [SIF] think they own this place".

While it is true that WikiProject Thomas originated at SIF, and core members of WikiProject Thomas are indeed regular members of SIF, by no means do we feel as though we have specific ownership of any page on Wikipedia. We very willingly welcome anyone who wishes to contribute constructively to any pages which fall under WikiProject Thomas' scope.

Having said that, however, superfluous edits, false edits, and edits which do not make a whole lot of sense, which have been made by unregistered users, will be reverted on sight. This is not asserting any kind of ownership on an article, this is maintaining an article's quality. There is a clear difference.

If you have any concerns, feel free to raise them on an article's talk page, or at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Thomas.

Gonzerelli 12:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Felix and his new categories
I dont want to get personal but am I the only one who is finding the User:FelixCheng a bit of a pain. I've just noticed he has created categories for the Arlesdale Railway and his personal favourite Culdee Fell Railway. I dont see any reason why these railways and their engines should be in further categories than they are already and in fact as the engines only appear in very few books and none of the TV episodes shouldn't they be included in the Minor Characters pages if they aren't already. Penrithguy 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree about Felix. His recent output includes creation of new articles for many of the characters from those two lines (and yes the characters are supposed to be described on the pages for those railways).  It is rather frustrating and wastes our time.


 * Somehow we need to get this guy on board with the project, as he must have a lot of time on his hands, and his prolific output (46 edits in the past day!) could be channeled to far better ends.


 * BTW - before you consider that ALL his output is of questionable worth, please bear in mind that one of his recent edits was to find and add cross-refs to the five real engines from the National Railway Museum on Minor Characters (The Railway Series). I have added a thank you on his talk page to that effect.


 * EdJogg 01:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I agree that some his edits are worthy and for an American he certainly knows a lot about British locomotives but I do agree that he should join the project Penrithguy


 * About the Culdee Fell and Arlesdale categories should they be deleted and the character pages turned into redirects? I know this will upset one particular user but I imagine the majority of us would agree with this action Penrithguy 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Diesel
Hi. I've just come across this WikiProject and would be happy to help. I've noticed that Diesel has his own page Devious Diesel but this is not linked to from any other. As he is not on your list of Major Character Pages, what will happen to this one - is it worth relocating the information and deleting? Just bringing this to your attention. Mdcollins1984 13:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome aboard! As well as reducing the number of individual 'Thomas'-related pages within Wikipedia, one of the main aims of this project is to provide separate descriptions for the characters as they appear in The Railway Series books and the TV Series.


 * Most of the lesser 'main characters' (Diesel, Daisy, Boco, etc) have had their own pages in the past that covered both TV and book aspects. As a result of this project, many of these have been grouped onto a single page, with all significant data transferred.  Unfortunately, only the TV Series -aspect has been tackled so far - the page that describes these characters from the book perspective has not yet been created/populated.  I think this is why pages such as Devious Diesel are still visible - they have been redirected to the 'grouped' pages several times, but certain editors (eg Felix, especially) keep reverting the redirects - and this is wasting a lot of time for us project editors.


 * 'What should happen' is that someone needs to create a page for Railway Engines (The Railway Series), and add the details for each of the missing engines, from the books' perspective. (See the table above!)  Then all the links may be updated...


 * After that, the individual page should be redirected to one of the grouped pages, whichever is more significant (for example Stepney has a whole book dedicated to him, whereas he only plays a bit part in the TV Series, hence should link to Book entry).


 * If we keep suffering redirect reverts then the original pages will just have to be deleted, but I think we're trying to avoid that for the moment.


 * NB - there are LOADS of pages that link to Devious Diesel! Each of these links ought to be modified to link directly to either the TV Series entry or the Railway Series entry, as appropriate.


 * Sorry for waffling on. Hope this helps EdJogg 23:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ummm, short memory! See 'How To' above! EdJogg 13:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Locations
I think it is worth moving some of the fictional locations into one page, rather than a paragraph or two on each one. Obviously some, like Sodor and all the railways should keep theirs, but, for example, Gordon's Hill, Knapford, Wellsworth etc could be merged into one (Fictional Locations (The Railway Series) maybe... What do you all think? Mdcollins1984 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems entirely in keeping with the general project approach. Again, remember to separate-out the book and TV aspects. I haven't looked at most, but I would suggest that any that exceed 1/2 - 3/4 screenful would be candidates for remaining as separate articles (eg Ffarquhar, Knapford, Tidmouth, Elsbridge should remain separate, while Gordon's Hill, Crovan's Gate could be moved.)


 * Next stage would be to add a table here of all the locations...   EdJogg 11:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See Fictional Locations (The Railway Series) ! Work in progress. Lots of linkage needed. Mainly copy and paste from the places listed in Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends Locations.


 * Mdcollins1984 14:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Done Mdcollins1984 07:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, y'all! I was perusing the Uncategorized Pages List and ran across Ballahoo - and subsequently Knapford, Tidmouth, and the rest outlined above. I've marked all the 1/2 page or less ones as "merge", but I can see here that there's already been discussion about them.

Is someone planning on expanding the pages? If so, the merge markers can definitely be deleted! But if not, maybe we can put in a redirect to Towns and Villages or the appropriate sub-section? The merge discussion has been started here.

Thanks! -- SatyrTN 13:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, ideally, the plan was to remove the short articles, merging them into a larger one. The trouble occured when I was editing those pages was that the locations differ between the TV series, and the Railway Series books. Otherwise a simple redirect would have surficed, but this would link to one or the other not both. Perhaps page deletion would be better? Mdcollins1984 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What about adding two sections to each of the short pages - Railway Series books and Thomas the Tank and Friends (with the correct titles - I don't know them :). Then a short description - "In the book series, this town is ... For more information, see ...".  Would that work well? -- SatyrTN 14:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that is almost what has been done anyway, people looking at it will know which version they will prefer to look at. Too much information leads to edit conflicts and inconsistency. I think i will add them to catagories instead. Mdcollins1984 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all, for your work in this area - and thanks for adding the pages to the categories needed. -- SatyrTN 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Pip & Emma
Hi,

We have conflicting information about Pip & Emma... Does this mean that the engines were shown before, but were not owned by the Fat Controller (i.e. they worked on The Other Railway)?
 * North Western Railway (fictional) says that The Fat Controller was considering purchasing Pip & Emma (one locomotive) to run an express to London {source: Sodor Reading between the lines).
 * Minor Characters (The Railway Series) say that they have appeared in two books 'Gordon the High-Speed Engine' and 'Thomas and the Fat Controller's Engines'.

Mdcollins1984 14:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry - sorted Mdcollins1984 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads up
Howdy all - I recently created the Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends characters category, which I'm happy to see is now part of a project. Meanwhile, you may wish to check the discussion over at CFD about it. I also just now created a category The Railway Series, which I did before I knew of your project but which I hope will be useful to you. Cheers, &hearts; Her Pegship &hearts; 02:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In my mind, with successful completion of the Character Page Rationalisation Mini-Project, the number of pages about any characters from either series will be significantly reduced. As such, I don't see the point of having Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends characters as a sub-category of Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends.


 * But the idea of having separate characters for the TV Series and Railway Series certainly appeals to me - perhaps Railway Series as a sub-category (and the only sub-category) of the TV Series... Shall work on it shortly. Gonzerelli 09:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Gonz is back...
I've been on a WikiBreak for the past month or so, to work on my production and also to have a very short getaway.

"This isn't worth a section of its own, surely??", you may ask. But I have the following comments to make.


 * First and foremost, welcome to all the newer participants to this WikiProject, as wel as those who have participated more actively within the past month. I'm fairly happy with how things are looking, and I attribute this to participants old and new, and their hard work. Thanks again for that.


 * Thomas and Friends - Season 10. As far as I'm concerned, this season has not yet been broadcast, and so any mention of Season 10 made in any article other than its own, should be written off as rumour or speculation. The only exception to this should be the acknowledgement of the fact that there *is* a season 10 to be broadcast in 2006, and even then probably only on the main page for the TV Series. Once the season has been broadcast, then by all means, bring on the info, so long as it's accurate.


 * Major Characters (The Railway Series). Great work getting this page off the ground. However, I don't think the pictures from the TV series should be there at all, when the page is clearly about the Railway Series. This is in direct violation with one of the major policies of WikiProject Thomas - clear deliniation of TV Series / Railway Series / Movies. If pictures from the books cannot be provided (for copyright reasons, perhaps), then I'd rather there be no pictures at all on this page, than have TV Series pictures.


 * Categories: as per my comments above. I would like to see the categories as follows:
 * Category:Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends
 * Category:The Railway Series (Quite possibly as a sub-category of TTTE&F)
 * and that's it. If the mini-projects (particularly to do with rationalisation) can be completed successfully, there will be absolutely no need to have sub-categories beyond these (particularly "characters" sub-cats).

Sorry to turn into the dictator, but someone has to stand up and say "these things need to be done". Do realise, though, that I appreciate all of your efforts in making this WikiProject successful.

Gonzerelli 10:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! Good points made, as always, however I'm wondering why you feel that the Railway Series should be a sub-cat of TTTE&F, when the TV series was spawned from the RS, not the other way around. Can you explain your views on that slightly better.


 * I agree about the pictures in the Major/Minor Characters for the Railway Series, I'll remove them. [which you have already done for now!]


 * Have fun catching up on all that has been done in your absence! Mdcollins1984 10:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not with complete comfort that I made the category suggestion... But it's all about clearly categorising in a way that the general public will be able to use. The fact of the matter is that the TV Series is more widely recognised than the Railway Series (which is the main reason this very WikiProject was titled WikiProject Thomas, rather than the more neutral WikiProject Sodor, which was being seriously considered).


 * In any case, the two categories need to be worthwhile in their own right, but strongly inter-linked, and I feel this is the most convenient way to do so. I just feel that having the TV series a sub-cat of the Railway Series would be a weaker option than the other way around.


 * Gonzerelli 10:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Character re-rationalisation?
Sorry to be the pickled onion in the fruit salad here, but I'm really not sure that the way the character articles are organised is very novice-friendly. Indeed, it seems to me that there's a tendency to edit purely for the sake of it. As an example, the Mid Sodor Railway article as originally created listed the engines with a brief biography. Now, if I want to find information on the engines, I have to click on a link to another article. If I want to find out about Duke, I have to click on another link within that. As another, the Arlesdale Railway article now links to the Minor Characters article - all very well, but it doesn't cover Sigrid of Arlesdale, Blister I or Blister II.


 * True, but if you wanted to find out about the characters in the Railway Series, you would then have to go through about six 'railway' pages to find all (well some) of the characters involved. What if there are some that aren't covered under articles such as Mid Sodor, or Arlesdale? This way also stops random articles appearing everywhere, and duplication of characters across more than one page with differing text. Mdcollins1984 10:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigrid of Arlesdale, Blister I and Blister II are covered under Unfeatured Characters (perhaps more linking is required to this page) Mdcollins1984 10:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Template reorganisation
I've renamed your template to an easier-to-remember and more conventional WPThomas. Don't worry, the old name still works. I've also created Category:WikiProject Thomas.

Might I suggest that you add article assessment code to your template? You'd get a bot created article list every day, which is a great help I've found, and your articles can be considered for Wikipedia 1.0. See Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot and Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index for more info. Your call, though, it's entirely optional. --kingboyk 13:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Presumably it is possible for the template to include the category assignment too? This would be a good idea if it can be.  Would probably need a concerted effort (aka 'mini-project' :-) ) to add the template to the many tens of character redirect pages that exist, for it to have maximum effectiveness.  Otherwise, I'm all for it.  (Will need someone with more experience than me to implement these changes though). --EdJogg 14:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no need to add it to redirect pages, just articles. Tens is a small Project by the way :) WPBiography has over 100,000 articles tagged! --kingboyk 15:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate the effort, and I hope you won't take it as an offense that I revert the template to the original title of  . I had found this format in use by other WikiProjects, so it is not terribly unconventional. Also, only a handful of articles had the "new" templates added/altered, with many more (and, in particular, "key" articles) with the "old" template link. As a matter of convenience, reverting back to the "old" title is the best way, and it's not terribly hard to remember or look up.

We are getting much closer to a point where we could viably use a bot to assist WP:THOMAS. We have only been reluctant to use it in the past with the pages being nothing short of chaotic, and throwing a bot into the equation could only have complicated matters. I will investigate the bot possibilities, as first mentioned in the very first section here, in the coming weeks. Gonzerelli 17:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Expanding on the template discussions, TrainsWikiProject includes the parameter "Thomas=yes" to indicate articles fall within the scope of WP Thomas (I just ensured that it will use the same category as you've already got set up). The advantage here is that TrainsWikiProject also includes article quality assessment parameters.  Let me know if you have any questions about this.  Slambo (Speak)  18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I appreciate the effort and consideration. But my personal feeling is that this would be better under our more direct control. While I don't dispute WP:THOMAS falling under the broader WP:TRAINS banner, since obviously locomotives are the focus of both the TV Series and Railway Series.
 * However, we musn't lose sight of the fact that we are talking about works fiction. Without getting into a political debate, WikiProject Thomas, by definition of its subject area (see "Scope"), also clearly falls under WikiProject Arts, WikiProject Entertainment, WikiProject Television, WikiProject British TV shows, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Children's literature, even WikiProject Films.
 * My point is that by the very nature of what WP:THOMAS deals with, we simply aren't "just" a smaller train project. So to have everything totally under the thumb of WP:TRAINS is not in our best interests. Please don't see this as an insult, I know WP:TRAINS has only looked to be helpful. But I personally feel we have been making steady progress with the resources available to us, and because of the unique nature of this WikiProject, however tedious it may be, this is probably the most convenient way to go about our work.
 * Feel free to comment further, or even argue if you feel the need. This is my personal view. Gonzerelli 22:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not bothered, just wanted to make sure that you knew about the changes to TrainsWikiProject that relate to WP Thomas. If you'd rather use the WP Thomas project specific banner, I have no arguments.  Now that I know that, I won't push the broader template onto Thomas pages.  However, I'd be happy to help you set up the assessment parameters and categories should you decide to use them.  To avoid potential confusion over which template to use, would you, as a project, like me to remove or at least comment out the Thomas argument in TrainsWikiProject?
 * BTW, I am also a Thomas fan and have several of the tapes going back to Ringo's narration (he's still my favorite narrator, even though Carlin did an honorable job at it IMO). Slambo (Speak)  01:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

List of fictional vehicles - how to handle?
While sorting out redirects for BoCo I bumped into the List of fictional vehicles. Recently, someone has added a raft of 'Thomas' characters to this list, using the original (long) re-direct names.

My question: should we expand this list to cover 'all' the characters, named individually, or revise it so that it just points to the various grouped character pages (my preference - lower maintenance and less work at the outset!)

EdJogg 08:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Put our own "list" pages there. ie. Railway Engines, Non-rail vehicles, etc. Don't bother with the "individual page" characters - they're already in the list pages. Gonzerelli 12:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's on my ToDo list... :o) -- EdJogg 12:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Done! -- EdJogg 16:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'M BACK!!!
Hey guys, sorry I haven't been active for the past couple of months as I have been busy in other areas of wikipedia, however I'm back and ready to contribute again!

With that said, there is some work that I want to take on. I want to create pages about the individual Railway Series books written by the two authors. If this is okay, please let me know here or on my talk page.

Also, there was some talk about uploading images from the books. We can do this, however, they will qualify as fair use, which means the images, although somewhat copyrighted, can be used here. Opinions on these two matters would be greatly appreciated. --Imdanumber1 ( Talk &#124; contribs) 18:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good to have you back. We've calmed the storm somewhat recently, and things are chugging along quite nicely. Having said that, it's always nice to have a fresh perspective thrown in, to help us keep on top of things in the most efficient ways.
 * As for your idea to have separate articles for Rilway Series books, I feel it could have the potential to degenerate into a mess like the one we've just spent a lot of time cleaning up. However, List of Railway Series books allows for much expansion on the books, within the confines of their individual sections.
 * Also, we have discovered somewhat recently that the only images which qualify as "fair use" are the covers of the books. As annoying as this is in a way, we still have fourty images at our disposal. Most of the major characters feature on at least one book cover, and so can be ililustrated from a "Railway Series perspective" in this way.
 * Any further questions, please throw them up. It is helpful to discuss these things in detail! Gonzerelli 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)